============= Fractals 'r US; When you look in the Hebrew-English Bible dictionary; hebrew word for silver,, means [in english]silver,means money.[Strong's Hebrew -English dictionary/concordance] Wormwood [english]+ chernobyl [Urkranian- Bible ]are like that; look it up yourself, internet, check it out for youself NOBOBY that know much about the Bible,, sets a date, for those events; but 7 year ,3.5 year periods are clearly mentioned, Ezekiel 38, 39 are a great /read study.God [LORD of warfare]gets super mad @ the Arab- Russian invasion of Israel; super-earthquakes[every wall shall fall], fire , flood ,,brimstone, hail , disease ,,LORD turns every Arab-Russsian [Gog] sword against his brother.Weapons are burned , buzzards feast for long .time.................................................................. Amazing supernatural slaughter!!
regarding being wrong... I am not even sure how I could be wrong on this. I am simply explaining what the scientists are stating. and giving you the 4 options. I am not the one stating we appear fine tuned... its virtually the entire scientific community. The question is why do we appear fine tuned. I was not wrong about the polls at the start of that thread they were going dem plus 10 or more which was seriously distorted. I predicted they would tighten up when the did. I even remember ak lamenting the fact they changed the way they were doing their samples. When I become wrong was in towards the end when I predicted lower Obama turnout and bigger Romney turnout. The Romney turnout did not really show up. I was completely right about the polls being slanted. towards the end I even said... you have have to pick you template... I said the 2008 template was a responsible sample. I preferred 2010 or better... I was hoping Romney would get a better turnout... But no doubt Obama turned out fewer voters... as predicted.
stu lie as you may... you simply present any science which debunks the fact it takes 20 or so constants out to over 30 decimal places to predict a higgs boson. it is that kind of fine tuning which you cant deny.
yeah, I suppose that is the simplest and therefore the most correct answer. What the term for that. Reducio de profoundus? ( I just totally made that up)
Attaching some sort of non existent exceptional importance to cosmological constants only because of their calculated values, when you can't show those values wouldn't be inevitable anyway in line with the laws of physics, is nothing to do with science. You are wrong in constantly trying to pretend it is .
Question for the atheists/nonbelievers: I would like to know what piece of scientific evidence (proof) convinced (proved) to you that the Big Bang Theory is true? In your own words, please. (I want to know how you understand it in your mind.) No cut & pasted links, etc... Thanks, RC
its amazing you are willing to sound the trumpet of your own ignorance... so loundly Science has been attempting for decades to explain why the constants are tuned so finely. The fact is the constants are incredibly fine tuned... the explanation is 1 a Tuner or the answer is faith based... 2. a so far unseen untested multiverse - takes faith 3. future explanation - perhaps a theory of everything - which also takes faith how you could continue to bullshit abut this subject stu is amazing. The economist lays it out for you... See the title of the paragraph... the constant gardener... get it... http://www.economist.com/node/21558248 "The constant gardener One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%. Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."
It's a very well substantiated theory that has been continually substantiated and developed since its inception. The most intriguing point is that it the hubble scope used to observe planets has confirmed that distances of far away galaxies are proportional to their redshifts. This is indicative of an apparent velocity, and the farther away the galaxies are the higher the velocity (I'm paraphrasing here from wikipedia as this point stands out the most to me).
I would argue it takes evidence...if you're taking faith in anything it's that the scientists investigating these theories are performing their due diligence and presenting evidence/conclusions within the parameters of scientific integrity.